List all edges under a specific Global Edge profile by passing the profile ID.
List all edges under a specific Global Edge profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profileId | Yes | Profile ID to list edges for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / pageNoRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Page number for pagination (default 1)",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / pageSizeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Number of items per page (default 15)",
- "type": "number"
-}v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It confirms the per-profile scoping but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what an empty/unknown profile returns. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is the acceptable minimum for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, verb and resource first and scope trailing. Efficient, though extremely thin for a tool with any behavioral nuance to convey.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A one-parameter read-only list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema needs little prose; the description plus annotations are sufficient to call it correctly. Only pagination/return-shape context is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single profileId parameter is already documented as 'Profile ID to list edges for'. The description restates the same scope without adding format or sourcing detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (edges) plus its scoping constraint ('under a specific Global Edge profile'). It is distinguishable from ncloud_edge_get_edge and ncloud_edge_create_edge, but it never mentions the sibling ncloud_edge_list_profiles, which covers a different resource, so differentiation relies on the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this is the enumeration counterpart to ncloud_edge_get_edge. Pure 'what', zero 'when'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.